UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LIBRARY 


Motion  Pictures. 


Report 

of  the 

Special  Committee 
of 

THE  NEW  YORK  STATE  CONFERENCE  OF  MAYORS 

Appointed  to  make  an  Investigation 

into  the  Matter  of  the  Regulation 

of  Motion  Pictures. 


Report  Submitted  to,  and  adopted 

by 

The   New   York   State   Conference   of    Mayors 

at   the    Semi-annual    Meeting   held    in 

Albany,  N.  Y.,  February  24,  1920. 


\ 

- 


■3: 


THE  COMMITTEE 

» 

Hon.  Palmer  Canfield,  Jr.,  Chairman;  Mayor  of  Kingston  and  Rep- 
resentative of  Cities  of  the  Third  Class. 

Hon.  Walter  W.  Nicholson,  Commissioner  of  Public  Safety  of  Syra- 
cuse, and  Representative  of  Cities  of  the  Second  Class. 

Hon.  R.  Andrew  Hamilton,  Commissioner  of  Public  Safety  of  Roches- 
ter, and  Representative  of  Cities  of  the  First  Class. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Charles  O.  Judkins,  pastor  of  the  Grace  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  of  Glens  Falls,  N.  Y.,  and  Representative  of  the 
Churches. 

Mrs.  Howard  Gans,  of  New  York,  Representative  of  the  Federation  for 
Child  Study. 

Mr.  Rex  Beach,  of  Ardsley-on-the-Hudson,  Representative  of  the 
Authors  League. 

Mrs.  N.  B.  Spauldino,  of  Schenectady,  Representative  of  the  House- 
wives' League. 

Mr.  James  P.  Holland,  of  New  York,  President  of  the  New  York  State 
Federation  of  Labor,  Representative  of  Labor. 

Miss  Mary  Gray  Peck,  of  Geneva,  Representative  of  the  Free  Lance 
Women  Writers. 

Dr.  Everett  D.  Martin,  of  New  York,  Representative  of  the  National 
Board  of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures. 

Mr.  Albert  E.  Smith,  President  of  the  Vitagraph  Company  of  America. 
Representative  of  the  Motion  Picture  Producers. 

Mr.  Gabriel  L.  Hess,  of  the  Goldwyn  Distributing  Corporation,  Rep- 
resentative of  the  Motion  Picture  Distributors. 

Mr.  Walter  Hayes,  of  Buffalo,  Vice-President  of  the  Strand  Theatre 
Interests,  Representative  of  the  Motion  Picture  Exhibitors. 

Secretary — Mr.  William  P.  Capes,  Secretary  of  Neiu  York  State  Conference  of 
Mayors  and  Director  of  New  York  State  Bureau  of  Municipal  Information,  25 
]V ashington  Avenue,  Albany,  N.  Y. 


REPORT  OF  COMMITTEE 


To  the  New  York  State  Conference  of  Mayors: 

The  committee  you  appointed  last  year  to  consider  the  regulation  of 
motion  pictures  has  thoroughly  investigated  the  subject. 

On  January  15th  the  committee  met  at  the  Waldorf-Astoria  in  New 
York  City,  and  its  work  was  outlined  by  Hon.  Walter  W.  Stone  of  Syra- 
cuse, the  president  of  the  Conference.  That  afternoon  various  studios  were 
investigated  and  gone  over  thoroughly  in  order  that  the  producing  depart- 
ments of  the  work  might  be  understood. 

On  January  16th  the  art  of  exhibiting  the  pictures  was  investigated, 
and  a  reviewing  committee  of  the  National  Board  of  Review,  as  it  passed 
upon  the  pictures,  was  thoroughly  observed  in  action,  that  its  working  be 
understood.  In  the  afternoon  the  full  committee  met  at  the  Waldorf- 
Astoria  for  general  discussion  and  the  perfection  of  organization,  etc.  At 
this  meeting  the  following  sub-committees  were  appointed  to  bring  reports 
upon  the  following: 

Local  Regulation — Dr.  E.  D.  Martin,  chairman;  Mrs.  Howard  Gans 
and  Walter  Hayes. 

Existing  Laws — Gabriel  L.  Hess,  chairman;  Miss  Mary  Gray  Peck 
and  Albert  E.  Smith. 

National  Board  of  Review — Walter  W.  Nicholson,  chairman;  Mrs. 
N.  B.  Spaulding  and  Rev.  Dr.  Charles  O.  Judkins. 

State  Censorship — Rex  Beach,  chairman;  James  P.  Holland  and  R. 
Andrew  Hamilton. 

On  Monday,  February  2nd,  the  sub-committees  met  in  Albany  and 
submitted  in  their  reports  the  results  of  their  investigations.  These  re- 
ports were  read  and  debated  at  length,  and  a  special  committee  consisting 
of  Mayor  Palmer  Canfield,  Jr.,  of  Kingston,  N.  Y.,  Commissioner  Walter 
W.  Nicholson,  and  Rev.  C.  O.  Judkins  was  appointed  to  draw  up  the  gen- 
eral report  for  submission  to  the  entire  committee  preparatory  to  making 
the  final  report  to  the  Mayors'  Conference.. 


GENERAL  STATEMENT 


In  considering  the  regulation  of  motion  pictures,  it  is  necessary  to  get 
a  clear  conception  of  what  motion  pictures  are,  for  they  can  be  rightly 
regulated  only  when  they  are  rightly  conceived.  Motion  pictures  are  not 
primarily  a  business,  although  the  production  and  exhibition  of  motion 
pictures  has  become  a  great  business.  To  attempt  to  regulate  motion  pic- 
tures merely  as  a  business  would  go  very  wide  of  the  mark  of  the  true 
regulation  of  motion  pictures. 

Motion  pictures  are  not  primarily  an  educational  movement.  They 
may  be  educational  and  doubtless  will  be  used  largely  as  a  means  of  educa- 
tion, but  to  attempt  to  regulate  them  on  the  basis  of  their  educational 
value  would  be  a  false  move. 

Nor  are  motion  pictures  the  same  as  books,  papers  or  magazines,  and     n^3 
while  very  often  arguments  are  based  on  similes  between  the  motion  pic- 
tures and  the  book,  the  paper  or  the  magazine,  the  attempt  to  regulate  the 
motion  picture  as  you  would  a  book,  a  paper  or  a  magazine,  is  enept. 

Motion  pictures  are  primarily  an  art  and  the  logical  regulation  of 
motion  pictures  is  such  regulation  as  would  be  applied  to  art,  and  not  such 
as  would  be  applied  to  journalism,  or  literature,  or  business.  The  com- 
mittee feels  that  this  fundamental  principle  should  be  understood  for  on  its 
consideration  is  based  the  profound  conviction  that  the  motion  picture 
should  never  be  subjected  to  legalized  censorship,  such  as  state  censorship; 
but  simply T>ecause~"iT  is  primarily  an  art,  it  should  be  regulated  by  the 
review  of  a  body  of  people  who  so  love  and  appreciate  art  as  to  be  anxious 
for  its  perfection  to  the  point  of  voluntary  service  in  review  to  protect  and 
elevate  the  art  to  the  highest  possible  state  of  efficiency  in  order  that  the 
effect  upon  the  public  may  be  such  as  a  great  art  should  produce. 

Your  committee  is  convinced  that  the  National  Board  of  Review  is 
such  a  body  of  people;  and  that  while  it  is  possible,  y£t  in  all  probability 
no  politically  appointed  board  of  state  censors  would  be  such  a  body  of 
people.  Therefore  the  committee  believes  that  it  would  be  a  sheer  calamity 
to  supplant  the  National  Board  of  Review  and  the  results  of  its  efforts  with 
a  state  board  of  censors,  and  your  committee  begs  that  such  local  legislation 
as  shall  assist  the  National  Board  of  Review  to  carry  its  work  to  perfec- 
tion be  urged  upon  the  cities  by  the  State  Mayor's  Conference,  in  order 
that  the  people  realizing  the  peculiar  artistic  efficiency  of  the  National 
Board  of  Review  may  be  content  with  their  work  and  delivered  from  any 
reasons  for  desiring  the  setting  up  of  a  state  board  of  censorship.  These 
conclusions  are  based  on  the  following  summaries  of  the  reports  of  special 
committees. 


REPORT  OF  THE  INVESTIGATION 
OF  SUB-COMMITTEES 

EXISTING  LAWS 
New  York  has  a  regulatory  provision,  known  as  Section  1140-A  of 
the  Penal  Law.     It  was  added  to  our  statutes  by  Chapter  279  of  the 
Laws  of  1909,  and  became  effective  September  1,   1909.     It  reads  ?s  fol- 
lows : 

"Any  person  who  as  owner,  manager,  director,  or  ngent  or 
in  any  other  capacity  prepared,  advertises,  gives,  presents,  or  par 
ticipates  in  any  obscene,  indecent,  immoral  or  impure  drama,  play, 
exhibition,  show  or  entertainment,  which  would  tend  to  the  coi 
ruption  of  the  morals  of  youth  or  others,  and  every  person  aidin, 
or  abbetting  such  act,  and  every  owner,  or  lessee  or  manager  of 
any  garden,  building,  room,  place  or  structure,  who  leases  or  l^ts 
the  same  or  permits  the  same  to  be  used  for  the  purposes  of  any 
such  drama,  play,  exhibition  or  show  or  entertainment,  knowingly, 
or  who  assents  to  the  use  of  the  same  for  any  such  purpose  shall  be 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor." 

We  wish  to  call  to  the  attention  of  the  committee  that  this  law  was 
in  force  and  effect  when  the  late  Mayor  William  J.  Gaynor  in  191?  wrote 
his  veto  message  to  an  ordinance  which  attempted  to  set  up  a  censorship 
of  moving  pictures  in  New  York  City.  After  declaring  that  censorships 
which  interfered  with  freedom  of  speech,  of  the  press  and  of  opinion,  had 
been  abolished  in  all  free  countries  throughout  the  world,  he  asserted  that 
our  present  laws  were  ample  to  prevent  the  publication  of  any  libelous, 
obscene,  immoral  or  impure  picture  or  reading  matter.  "If  anyone  does 
this  he  commits  a  criminal  offense  and  may  be  punished  therefor,"  he  said. 

We  have  the  evidence  of  this  great  jurist  and  great  lover  of  freedom 
that  this  law  is  sufficient  to  prevent  the  exhibition  of  indecent  and  obscene 
pictures.  Despite  this  evidence  there  are  those  who  say  the  law  cannot 
be  enforced.  It  should  be  remembered  that  no  penal  law  is  self-enforcing, 
but  this  one  can  be  and  has  been.  When  the  "White  Slave"  picture  first 
appeared,  Justice  Davis  was  asked  to  grant  an  injunction,  resrraining  the 
production  of  one  of  these  pictures.  He  viewed  the  picture  and  dem'id  the 
application  for  an  injunction.  The  exhibitor  was  tried,  convicted  and  sen- 
tenced under  this  law. 

It  will  be  noted  that  a  person  violating  this  law  is  guilty  of  a  mis- 
demeanor. Any  person  can  make  a  complaint  to  a  magistrate,  and  the 
person  charged  with  the  offense  can  be  brought  into  court  on  a  summons  or 
a  warrant.     It  is  not  necessary  to  have  the  case  presented  to  a  Grand  Jury, 


although  that  can  be  done,  but  can  be  disposed  of  by  the  magistrate.  This 
committee  agrees  with  the  late  Justice  Gaynor  that  the  law  is  sufficient  to 
punish  any  person  presenting  an  indecent,  obscene,  or  immoral  picture 
which  would  tend  to  the  corruption  of  the  morals  of  youth. 

Your  sub-committee  has  made  an  examination  of  the  laws  of  other 
states  for  the  purpose  of  determining  if  the  one  in  New  York  could  be 
improved  by  amendment.  It  finds  that  in  Massachusetts,  Illinois  and  other 
states  where  laws  have  been  passed  they  are  in  the  language  of  the  New 
York  statute,  which  covers  dramatic  and  all  other  forms  of  entertainments 
as  well  as  moving  picture.  The  only  state  in  which  motion  pictures  are 
specifically  mentioned  is  Vermont.  Section  7023  of  the  General  Laws  of 
that  state  read : 

"A  person  who  exhibits  to  the  public  moving  pictures  which 
are  obsence  or  immoral,  or  presents  an  obscene  or  immoral  show, 
vaudeville  or  entertainment,  shall  be  imprisoned  not  more  than 
three  months  or  fined  not  more  than  two  hundred  dollars  or 
both." 

We  believe  the  New  York  law  is  stronger  than  that  of  Vermont.  A 
conviction  as  a  misdemeanor  under  the  New  York  law  would  carry  with 
it  an  imprisonment  of  not  more  than  one  year,  or  a  fine  of  not  more  than 
five  hundred  dollars,  or  both. 

For  the  reasons  stated,  this  sub-committee  does  not  recommend  any 
change  in  the  present  law,  but  reports  that  in  its  opinion  it  is  sufficient  to 
prosecute  any  person  presenting  an  indecent,  obscene  or  immoral  picture. 

LOCAL  REGULATIONS 

Naturally  following  the  report  of  existing  laws  is  the  digest  of  the 
findings  of  the  sub-committee  appointed  to  investigate  and  report  on 
Local  Regulations. 

After  careful  investigation  the  findings  are  as  follows: 

There  should  be  passed  in  every  community  two  ordinances — one  an 

ordinance  relative  to  motion  pictures  advertising  and  the  other  an  ordinance 

relative  to  the  regulation  of  motion  picture  films.     To  facilitate  the  work 

of   passing   these   ordinances,    two   suggested    ordinances    are   hereby   sub- 

Suggested  Ordinance  No.   1 

The  committee  recognizes  the  power  now  vested  in  each  local  com- 
munity to  regulate  amusements.  It  would  strengthen  this  power  by 
recommending  that  each  community  pass  an  ordinance  governing  display 
advertising  in  front  of  places  of  amusement. 

Section  1.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  proprietor,  operator  or 
manager  of  every  motion  picture  theatre  or  other  place  of  amusement  in 


(city,  town  or  village)  open  to  the  public  in  which  motion 

pictures  are  exhibited,  whenever  advertising  matter  on  a  billboard  placed 
in  front  of  the  building  or  other  structure  in  which  motion  pictures  are 
exhibited  or  other  public  places,  the  title  to  the  pictures  or  other  descrip- 
tion shall  be  full  enough  to  describe  in  general  terms  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  picture  or  pictures  to  be  shown.  No  such  proprietor, 
operator  or  manager  shall  place,  maintain  or  allow  to  be  placed  or  main- 
tained in  front  or  in  connection  with  any  such  theatre  or  other  place  of 
public  amusement  any  sign,  picture  or  other  announcement  which  in  any 
manner  misstates  or  misrepresents  the  pictures  or  other  amusements  which 
are  being  shown  in  said  place,  or  which  announces  a  picture  or  other  form 
of  amusement  or  entertainments  which  is  not  at  the  time  such  announce- 
ment is  displayed  being  shown  and  exhibited  in  said  theatre  or  other  place 
of  amusement.  This  shall  not  apply  to  posters  which  advertise  advance 
exhibitions. 

Section  2.     No  proprietor,  operator  or  manager  of  a  motion  picture 

theatre  or  other  public  place  in   (city,  town  or  village) 

shall  display  in  front  of,  or  in  connection  with  such  place  of  amusement 
a  sign,  picture,  billboard  or  poster  or  other  advertisement  which  repre- 
sents any  matter  of  immoral  or  indecent  nature,  or  which  depicts  offensive 
acts  or  violence  or  of  human  torture  or  is  calculated  to  incite  riot  or  acts  con- 
trary to  the  public  peace;  and  be  it  furthermore  enacted,  that  no  such  pic- 
ture, sign,  billboard  or  poster  shall  exhibit  for  public  display  pictures  of  the 
female  form  in  the  nude  or  clad  in  one-piece  bathing  suits,  tights  or  other 
lascivious  and  suggestive  costumes. 

Section  3.     Any  person  being  such  proprietor,  agent  or  manager  of 

any  theatre  or  other  place  of  amusement  in (city,  town  or 

village)  open  to  the  public,  failing  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this 
ordinance  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 

Ordinance  No.  2 
AN  ORDINANCE  OF   (City,  Town  or  Village) 

RELATING  TO  MOTION  PICTURES  AND  PROVID- 
ING FOR  A  SYSTEM  OF  REGULATION  THEREOF 

Be  it  ordained  by  the    (city,  town  or  village)    as 

follows : 

Section  1.  Definitions. — Unless  it  appears  from  the  context  that  a 
different  meaning  is  intended,  the  following  words  as  used  shall  have  the 
following  meanings  attached  to  them  by  this  section: 

The  word  "picture"  shall  mean  and  include  any  picture  or  series  of 
pictures  of  the  classes  and  kinds  commonly  shown  by  means  of  mutoscope, 


cinematographs  or  automatic  or  moving  picture  devices. 

The  words  "to  show"  shall  mean  to  show,  display,  produce  or  ex- 
hibit. 

The   word    "person"   shall   mean    any    person,    firm    or    corporation, 

whether  acting  as  principal  or  agent. 

Section  2.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  licensing  official,  mayor,  police 
authority,  common  council  or  commissioner  of  public  safety  to  discover  and 
prevent  violations  of  this  ordinance. 

Section  3.  At  a  reasonable  time  before  any  picture  not  approved  by 
the  National  Board  of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures  and  which  does  not 
bear  the  official  copyright  insignia  of  the  National  Board  is  publicly  ex- 
hibited in (city,  town  or  village)  the  person  whose  intent 

it  is  to  rent  or  exhibit  the  same  shall  file  with  the  licensing  official,  mayor, 
police  authority,  common  council  or  commissioner  of  public  safety,  a 
written  notice  of  their  intention  so  to  do.     Such  notice  shall  state: 

(a)  The  name  of  the  picture. 

(b)  The  name  of  the  manufacturer  thereof. 

(c)  The  general  character  of  the  picture. 

(d)  Time  and  place  at  which  it  is  intended  first  to  display  the  picture. 

(e)  The  name  and  address  of  persons  filing  the  notice  to  which  re- 
quests, demands  and  notices  provided  for  in  this  ordinance  may 
be  served. 

The  statement  shall  be  signed  by  the  person  in  immediate  control  of 
the  place  from  which  the  picture  is  to  be  leased,  rented,  sold  or  exhibited. 

Section  4.  The  licensing  official,  mayor,  police  authority,  common 
council  or  commissioner  of  public  safety  is  hereby  empowered  and  author- 
ized to  demand  that  any  picture  which  has  not  been  passed  by  the  National 

Board  of  Review  and  which  is  proposed  to  be  shown  in    

(city,  town  or  village)  be  shown  to  the  licensing  official,  mayor,  police 
authority,  common  council  or  commissioner  of  public  safety  before  the 
public  exhibition  thereof.  Such  demand  shall  be  made  in  writing  and  shall 
be  addressed  to  the  person  signing  the  notice  herein  required  at  the  ad- 
dress given  in  such  notice  and  may  be  served  upon  him  personally  or  by 
leaving  such  a  demand  in  a  conspicuous  place  at  such  add.  °ss.  The  person 
acting  as  principal  or  agent  for  the  picture  shall  provide  free  of  charge  the 
place  and  proper  facilities  by  which  the  picture  is  to  be  shown  to  the 
licensing  official,  mayor,  etc.,  and  shall  so  show  it. 

Section  5.    And  be  it  further  enacted  that  the  licensing  official,  mayor, 

police   authority,    common   council   or   commissioner   of    public   safety    in 

(city,  town  or  village)    is  hereby  given  authority  to  pro- 


hibit  the  exhibition  of  such  advertising  as  is  designated  in  Ordinance  No.  1, 
and  said  official  is  hereby  given  authority  to  enforce  Ordinance  No.  1. 

Section  6.  The  licensing  official,  mayor,  etc.,  is  hereby  empowered 
and  authorized  and  it  shall  be  his  duty  to  prohibit,  or  to  prohibit  in  part 
any  picture  which  he  finds  to  be  obscene,  indecent,  improper,  licentious  or 
immoral,  or  any  picture  that  would  have  a  harmful  influence  on  the  public. 
Upon  making  such  finding,  the  official  shall  immediately  notify  the  person 
filing  the  notice  of  his  intention  to  show  such  picture  of  the  finding  and 
that  the  showing  of  the  picture,  or  such  part  thereof  as  may  be  designated 
by  such  official  is  prohibited. 

Pictures  for  Children 

It  is  also  recommended  that  the  present  state  law  governing  the  at- 
tendance of  children  under  sixteen  unaccompanied  by  parent  or  guardian 
be  amend-d  to  permit  each  locality,  through  the  enactment  of  local 
ordinance,  to  sanction  special  young  people's  performances  of  selected  pic- 
tures where  such  performances  are  arranged  under  proper  local  auspices  in 
connection  with  the  Better  Film  Movement. 

Your  committee  bases  the  above  recommendation  on  its  conviction 
that  the  special  performances  for  children  and  young  people  are  the  only 
permanent  solution  of  a  community  motion  picture  problem.  In  view  of 
the  fact  that  according  to  reliable  statistics  a  small  percentage  of  audiences 
attending  motion  picture  theatres  consist  of  young  people  under  sixteen, 
any  form  of  regulation  based  upon  such  a  minor  percentage  of  the  total 
audience  invades  the  rights  of  the  majority. 

Your  committee  has  carried  on  an  investigation  in  various  directions, 
the  result  of  which  leads  them  to  the  definite  conviction  that  the  attend- 
ance of  young  people  in  the  downtown  theatres  in  the  various  towns  and 
cities  is  practically  negligible,  while  the  attendance  of  children  in  the  local 
neighborhood  theatres  is  of  more  consequence,  but  would  doubtless  not 
exceed  ten  per  cent  of  the  audience,  except  in  a  case  where  pictures  are  being 
shown  which  appeal  especially  to  young  people  under  sixteen.  Any  form 
of  regulation,  therefore,  based  upon  such  a  minor  percentage  of  the  total 
audience  invades  the  rights  of  the  majority.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
special  performances  for  young  people  would  unquestionably  draw  off 
from  the  regular  performances  where  pictures  of  an  ordinary  character  are 
shown,  the  young  people  customarily  attending  such  exhibitions.  It  would 
furnish  them  with  a  type  of  entertainment  of  an  entirely  suitable  nature 
and  thus  the  minority  of  the  ordinary  audience  would  be  taken  care  of 
without  interfering  with  the  programs  which  are  designed  primarily  for 
adults,  the  majority. 


Your  committee  believes  that  an  ordinance  subjecting  pictures  such 
as  are  described  above  to  the  possible  interference  of  the  local  licensing 
agency,  adds  in  no  way  to  the  present  powers  of  the  local  license  agency, 
but  directs  its  actions  toward  the  pictures  in  no  other  way  reviewed.  Your 
committee  believes  also  that  such  an  emphasis  will  cause  the  producers 
to  make  a  special  effort  to  bring  the  one  per  cent  of  unreviewed  pictures 
under  the  scrutiny  of  the  National  Board  of  Review.  Since  then  to  draw 
the  attention  of  the  local  licensing  agency  to  the  need  of  watching  the  one 
per  cent  of  unreviewed  pictures  in  no  way  enhances  the  already  estab- 
lished power  of  the  licensing  agency,  and  since  it  would  tend  to  give  the 
National  Board  of  Review  complete  oversight  over  the  output  of  motion 
picture  producers,  the  ordinance  seems  to  your  committee  to  be  in  harmony 
with  its  basal  principle  of  fostering  the  National  Board  of  Review  and 
does  nothing  to  increase  the  already  established  power  of  local  licensing 
agencies.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the  local  licensing  agency  is  in 
an  indirect  sense  a  regulator,  as  it  has  the  power  to  revoke  the  license  of 
offending  exhibitors. 

N  A  Tl  0  NA  L  BOARD  OF  RE  VIE  W 
History.  The  National  Board  of  Review  of  Motion  Pictures  was 
established  by  the  Peoples  Institute  in  New  York  City  in  1909.  It  is  still 
affiliated  with  the  Peoples  Institute.  The  Board  reviewed  sixty-five  per 
cent  of  the  films  circulated  in  the  United  States  in  1909  and  in  1916  its 
activities  had  extended  to  cover  ninety-nine  per  cent  of  the  films  produced 
and  circulated  here.  Its  membership,  always  voluntary,  consisted  of  seven 
persons  in  1909  and  had  increased  to  over  two  hundred  persons  in  1917. 
It  is  self-governing  and  through  its  general  committee  establishes  standards 
and  rules  of  procedure;  elects  its  own  officers  and  members  and  selects  its 
executive  staff.  No  votes  are  permitted  on  any  picture  by  any  one  even 
remotely  connected  with  the  motion  picture  industry. 

Organization.  Its  General  Committee,  which  is  the  governing  body, 
is  drawn  from  persons  of  training  who  are  identified  with  various  welfare 
and  civic  movements.  The  General  Committee  also  elects  an  Executive 
Committee,  charged  with  the  details  of  administration,  and  a  Review  Com- 
mittee which  deals  directly  with  the  motion  picture  output. 

Finance.  The  cost  of  the  work  of  the  National  Board  is  met  by  con- 
tributions made  through  the  Peoples  Institute,  by  persons  interested  in  the 
educational  work  of  the  Board;  by  persons  who  have  become  sustaining 
members;  and  by  charges  made  against  the  producers  covering  the  work 
of  review,  upon  an  agreed  rate  per  reel  of  all  films  reviewed.  Contrary  to 
general  understanding  the  producers  have  no  influence  over  the  Board,  for 


the  reason  that  those  who  by  this  plan  review  the  pictures  are  not  re- 
munerated by  the  industry.  The  fees  collected  are  used  solely  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  office  force,  no  member  of  which  is  on  the  Board. 

Methods.  Pictures  are  shown  in  advance  of  publicity  to  the  Review 
Committee.  This  committee  is  divided  for  convenience  into  several  di- 
visions, each  such  division  meeting,  one  day  each  week.  Pictures  after  re- 
view are  passed  with  or  without  elimination.  Any  picture  can  be  appealed 
by  a  member  of  the  Review  committee,  by  the  Secretary  of  by  the  Producer, 
to  the  General  Committee,  which  thereupon  makes  final  review  and  gives 
final  decisions.  After  final  action  is  taken  the  owner  is  notified  and  agrees 
to  make  the  changes  suggested.  A  bulletin  of  information  concerning 
action  on  all  pictures  is  issued  each  week  to  national  correspondents,  includ- 
ing municipal  officials. 

Standards 

From  a  list  of  nearly  forty  standards  which  guide  the  Review  and 
General  Committees,  and  therefore  the  Board  itself,  in  its  judgment  of  the 
quality  and  suitableness  of  motion  pictures  for  exhibition  in  the  United 
States,  we  draw  attention  to  the  following: 

"The  Board  will  not  pass  pictures  which  would  tend  to  influence 
public  opinion  on  questions  of  fact  in  any  matter  that  is  before  the  courts 
for  adjudication." 

"No  comedy  which  in  effect  holds  up  to  ridicule  any  religious  sect, 
religion  generally  or  the  popular  characteristics  of  any  race  of  people  should 
be  shown." 

"Infidelity  to  marriage  ties  must  not  be  treated  improperly  or  sugges- 
tively as  a  comedy  theme.  All  loose  suggestive  comedy  'business'  between 
the  sexes  should  be  removed.  Suggestive  dress  or  actions  which  provoke 
sensuality  of  thought  are  also  objectionable." 

"The  National  Board  will  not  permit  the  rough  handling  of  women 
and  children,  the  aged  and  infirm,  or  cruelty  to  animals." 

"The  National  Board  holds  that  respect  be  shown  for  the  law  in  ac- 
tion and  thought." 

"Crimes  of  violence,  Theft,  Fraud,  Forgery,  Burglary  and  Robbery. 
No  suggestively  instructive  or  ingenious  methods  may  be  exploited." 

"Those  scenes  which  are  ardent  beyond  the  strict  requirements  of  the 
dramatic  situation  have  been  curtailed  by  the  National  Board." 

"The  National  Board  recognizes  the  influence  of  the  display  of  under- 
garments and  the  partial  display  of  the  person  and  judges  critically  all  such 
incidents.  The  producers  sometimes  assume  that  true  art  calls  for  the  par- 
ticular costume  chosen,  but  if  the  National  Board  thinks  that  the  art  is 


10 


put  in  to  carry  the  immorality  over,  or  that  the  immorality  is  more  effec- 
tive than  the  art,  it  considers  that  it  is  its  duty  to  condemn  the  picture." 

"The  National  Board  as  a  reflector  of  public  opinion  takes  the  position 
that  it  should  not  and  will  not  pass  any  pictures  containing  incidentally  or 
extensively  the  female  nude." 

A  national  agency  working  every  day  for  the  betterment  of  motion  pic- 
ture exhibitions  and  acting  under  such  principles  as  those  ennunciated 
above  is  bound  to  continuously  raise  the  standards  of  performance.  It 
must  be  admitted  by  any  person  who  has  given  much  thought  to  the  sub- 
ject, that  a  tremendous  advance  in  good  taste  has  been  made  during  the 
last  three  or  four  years.  It  seems  likely  to  your  committee  that  the  activity 
of  the  National  Board  of  Review  has  been  a  large  factor  in  this  process. 

Your  committee  believes  that  a  wider  use  of  the  facilities  and  service 
of  the  National  Board,  and  a  more  general  co-operation  on  the  part  of 
municipal  officials  with  the  National  Board  and  with  local  exhibitors,  will 
in  fact  meet  all  the  necessities  of  the  so-called  moving  picture  problem,  and 
will  be  more  effective  and  far-reaching  in  ultimate  results  than  any  other 
official  method.  A  policy  of  this  sort,  enforced  when  necessary  through 
exercise  of  the  police  and  license  power  will  be  adequate,  we  believe,  to 
meet  any  situation  that  may  arise. 

We  advise  that  producers  be  required  to  resume  the  practice  of  dis- 
playing the  shield  of  the  National  Board  on  all  films  passed  by  the  Board. 

As  a  further  means  of  increasing  the  influence  of  the  National  Board 
we  would  advise  an  extension  of  the  Advisory  Committee  membership,  and 
the  adoption  of  some  plan  which  may  secure  greater  activity  on  the  part  of 
the  members  of  the  Advisory  Committee. 

We  advise  that  the  National  Board  of  Review  by  some  practical 
means  establish  official  connections  with  municipal  administrations  through- 
put the  state;  and  establish  also  representative  advisory  boards  or  com- 
mittees in  all  the  states  and  larger  centers  of  population. 

STATE  CENSORSHIP 

The  sub-committee  to  investigate  state  censorship  made  a  comprehen- 
sive and  very  able  report.  The  report  is  too  long  to  be  included  in  this 
report,  but  on  account  of  its  value,  it  is  added  to  this  report  in  the  form 
of  an  appendix.  The  committee  gave  substantial  reasons  for  their  conclu- 
sions, as  follows: 

Legalized  censorship  of  the  film  is  a  dangerous  departure  in  a  free 
country.  It  is  no  less  dangerous  than  a  censorship  of  the  press  or  the  stage 
for  it  places  a  ban  upon  ideas.  The  indecent,  improper  and  immoral  film 
can  be  eradicated  by  the  same  methods  as  are  used  against  indecent,  im- 

11 


proper  and  immoral  books  or  plays.  It  may  make  the  passing  of  films  a 
matter  of  political  influence  and  result  in  consequent  abuses  of  power.  It 
does  not  reflect  public  opinion  but  merely  the  personal  views  of  the  censors 
themselves.  The  experiment  which  has  been  tried  in  other  states  does  not 
warrant  New  York  making  such  a  radical  departure  from  the  principles 
upon  which  our  Government  is  founded.  Nor  does  there  appear  to  be  the 
necessity  for  that  departure.  Great  as  has  been  the  improvement  of  the 
film  in  recent  years,  it  would  be  greater  and  more  rapid  were  the  menace 
of  censorship  eliminated  and  the  art  allowed  to  develop  along  its  natural 
lines,   governed   by   common   sense   and   the   good   taste   of   the   American 

people. 

GENERAL  SUMMARY 

Your  committee  finds  that  owing  to  the  nature  of  the  motion  picture 
art,  state  censorship  in  any  form  is  undesirable,  and  that  the  only  promising 
method  of  regulating  the  production  and  exhibition  of  motion  pictures  so 
that  the  public  shall  receive  the  greatest  possible  good  from  this  art,  is 
now  in  operation  in  the  form  of  the  National  Board  of  Review. 

Your  committee  believes  that  because  art  has  always  been  attended  by 
generous  self-sacrificing  patrons  and  critics,  the  National  Board  of  Review 
will  never  cease  to  function  and  function  wisely  in  its  attempt  to  advance 
the  interests  of  all  concerned. 

Hie  committee  believes  that  the  two  suggestions  concerning  ordinances 
will  give  all  the  added  power  to  the  Board  of  Review  desirable  at  this  time, 
and  urges  that  the  Mayors  of  the  State  recommend  such  local  legislation 
as  will  carry  these  ideas  into  effect.  The  only  diffcult  situation  is  concern- 
ing the  proper  handling  of  the  one  per  cent  of  the  films  which  does  not 
come  under  the  supervision  of  the  National  Board  of  Review,  and  the 
mayors  should  consider  which  would  be  the  greater  evil:  to  leave  this 
one  per  cent  utterly  unreviewed  and  so  liable  to  do  continual  harm,  or  to 
throw  the  supervision  of  this  one  per  cent  over  to  the  licensing  agencies  of 
the  communities  of  the  state.  The  final  action  of  a  licensing  agent  is,  of 
course,  in  the  form  of  punishment  for  a  misdemeanor,  but  the  fact  that  the 
licensing  agencies  may  be  given  power  to  review  this  one  per  cent  of  films 
with  the  understanding  that  if  undesirable,  the  licensing  agencies  may 
render  proper  punishment,  is  in  itself  an  indirect  type  of  regulation,  and 
the  mayors  must  decide  whether  this  indirect  type  is  a  greater  danger  than 
to  leave  the  one  per  cent  of  questionable  output  utterly  unreviewed. 

Your  committee  believes  the  lesson  of  these  two  evils  is  to  give  the 
licensing  agencies  the  right  to  act  as  in  the  proposed  ordinances.  It  will 
he  seen  that  the  bulk  of  the  work  reported  in  these  pages  is  a  review  of 

12 


matters  of  fact ;  that  the  only  debatable  questions  are  the  superiority  of  the 
National  Board  of  Review  over  state  censorship  and  the  method  of  bring- 
ing under  proper  surveillance  the  one  per  cent  of  unreviewed  films,  and 
we  believe  wise  recommendations  have  been  made  concerning  both  these 
questions. 


13 


REPORT  OF  SUB-COMMITTEE 
ON  STATE  CENSORSHIP 


To  the  Special  Committee  Appointed  by  the  State  Conference  of 
Mayors  on  the  Regulation  of  Motion  Pictures: 

Your  sub-committee,  appointed  to  inquire  into  and  report  upon  state 
censorship  of  motion  picture  films  desires  to  submit  the  following  report : 

It  is  unalterably  opposed  to  any  form  of  state  censorship  of  films  and 
for  the  following  reasons: 

The  Basic  Principle  of  Censorship  is  Un-American 

Free  thought  and  its  free  expression  in  speech  or  through  the  medium 
of  the  press,  the  pulpit,  the  forum,  the  stage  and  the  screen  is  a  right 
guaranteed  to  every  American  citizen  by  the  Federal  Constitution.  Our 
fathers  fled  the  Old  World  to  gain  freedom  for  the  expression  of  their 
religious  and  political  beliefs.  Free  speech,  a  free  press  and  a  free  stage 
have  become  and  must  ever  remain  an  inviolable  part  of  the  American  ideal. 

So  firmly  is  that  principle  grounded  in  our  national  life  that  not  only 
the  Federal  Constitution,  but  also  every  State  Constitution  guarantees  it, 
and  every  citizen  is  granted  the  right  of  free  speech  in  print,  being  held 
responsible  only  for  the  abuse  of  that  right.  The  screen  has  attained  a 
dignity  akin  to  that  of  the  stage  and  to  the  printed  page:  it  should  be  en- 
titled to  the  same  privileges  and  liable  to  the  same  penalties.  If  it  sins  it 
should  be  punished  in  the  same  way  as  the  stage  or  the  press  is  punished 
and  to  neither  a  greater  nor  a  lesser  extent. 

Film  censorship  inflicts  punishment  before  the  sin  is  committed  and  it 
is  a  blow  at  civil  liberty  quite  as  deadly  as  censorship  of  the  press,  for  the  film 
is  not  only  a  medium  of  entertainment  but  also  a  news  and  educational  me- 
dium, quite  as  universal  as  the  magazine  or  the  newspaper.  Should  America 
surrender  her  free  theatre,  which  means  a  free  screen,  she  might  as  well  give 
up  her  free  press,  her  free  speech  and  her  freedom  of  assemblage.  The 
one  might  well  lead  to  the  other.  Legislation  tending  towards  any  such  re- 
striction is  thoroughly  pernicious  and  in  the  end  will  destroy  personal  re- 
sponsibility, distort  the  public  mind  and  hamper  its  development  and  stunt 
the  vital  growth  of  education. 

Censorship  of  speech,  of  press,  pulpit  or  stage  has  ever  been  the  dis- 
tinguishing mark  of  despotism.  Freedom  in  the  expression  of  thought  is 
the  cornerstone  of  democracy. 


Censorship  is  a  Backward  Step  in  the  Progress  of  Civilization 
The  greatness  of  any  country  is  measured  by  the  greatness  of  its  art 
and  its  literature.     To  quote  the  Earl  of  Lytton,  "The  social  civilization 
of  a  people  is  always  and  infallibly  indicated  by  the  intellectual  character 
of  its  popular  amusements." 

To  restrict  the  free  development  and  expression  of  the  newest  of  arts 
through  censorship  is  a  step  backward  towards  the  dark  ages.  Censorship 
burned  the  Bible;  censorship  kept  from  the  French  people  for  a  whole 
generation  all  knowledge  of  Newton's  discovery  of  terrestial  magnetism. 
Leonardo  da  Vinci's  "Mona  Lisa"  was  pronounced  by  a  professor  of  the 
University  of  London  to  be  "one  of  the  most  actively  evil  pictures  ever 
painted."  When  Guttenberg  invented  the  printing  press  prototypes  of  the 
present  proponents  of  censorship  succeeded  in  suppressing  the  printed  word 
for  many  years.  The  motion  pictures  is  a  process  of  recording  thought 
without  the  use  of  printer's  ink  and  is  perhaps  as  great  an  advance  over 
printing  as  Guttenberg's  invention  was  over  the  quill  pen.  A  censorship 
of  the  one  is  no  less  dangerous  than  a  censorship  of  the  other. 

Censorship  is  Fundamentally  Wrong 
It  has  been  aptly  said  that  motion  picture  censorship  is  the  latest  device 
for  making  us  moral  by  act  of  legislature  and  is  a  futile  effort  to  correct 
Nature  which  gave  us  five  senses  and  but  one  conscience.  Certainly  it  is 
an  assumption  by  political  authority,  not  of  the  regulation  of  conduct,  but 
of  the  regulation  of  thought. 

Is  it  right  or  politic  to  select  any  three,  any  ten  or  any  hundred 
men  and  women,  however  pure,  however  wise,  however  blessed  with 
genius  and  endow  them  with  the  power  to  set  the  moral  standards  of 
12,000,000  people?  If  so,  would  that  standard  be  the  same  today  as  to- 
morrow ?  Would  it  be  the  same  in  one  locality  as  another  ?  It  would  not, 
should  not  be  the  same,  for  that  which  may  be  injurious  to  the  public  good 
in  one  locality  or  at  one  time  may  be  harmless  in  another  place  or  at  another 
day.  Will  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York  in  its  wisdom  define 
what  is  objectionable,  what  is  contrary  to  the  public  weal,  in  a  film?  We 
know  that  it  will  not.  Why  then  should  that  definition  be  left  to  others? 
Why  should  another  body  of  citizens,  of  no  greater  intelligence  or  aesthetic 
perception,  be  given  the  power  to  enforce  its  opinion  upon  the  rest  of  the 
people  ? 

We  possess  the  right  to  select  our  religious,  our  political  beliefs,  our 
newspapers,  books,  operas  and  plays,  but  a  film  censorship  law  would  take 
from  us  the  right  to  select  our  motion  pictures  and  permit  us  to  see  only 
those  which  appealed  to  the  censors. 

15 


:w  impulses  equal  the  passion  to  impose  our  own  views  upon  our 
neighbors,  to  regulate  their  morals  in  conformity  with  our  own.  Censor- 
ship results  from  the  determination  of  the  few  to  impose  their  views  upon 
the  many.  While  it  is  true  that  liberty  of  any  sort,  even  freedom  of 
speech,  is  liable  to  abuse,  there  are  safeguards  against  this,  and  he  who  is 
guilty  of  such  abuse  must  be  held  responsible.  It  is  quite  another  matter 
to  try  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  such  abuse  beforehand  by  surrendering 
both  freedom  and  responsibility  to  a  legalized  board,  however  constituted. 

Censorship  Will  Ever  Remain   Unsatisfactory 

Censorship  is  bound  to  be  unsatisfactory  until  that  time  when  all 
people  observe  life  through  the  same  glasses.  One  man  is  shocked  at  what 
another  considers  beautiful.  What  was  indecent  yesterday  may  be  decent 
today,  or  vice  versa.  Immorality,  indecency  are  general  terms;  they  can- 
not be  defined  with  geometrical  certainty.  They  vary  with  environment. 
They  may  be  matters  of  latitude  and  longitude.  Pictures  of  bathing  girls 
excite  no  comment  at  seaside  resorts ;  they  may  not  be  viewed  with  the  same 
indifference  in  the  prairie  states.  The  Eskimo  woman  warms  the  half 
frozen  feet  of  her  husband  upon  her  naked  body  in  a  manner  to  shock  her 
white  sister,  and  what  is  wifely  devotion  in  Etah  is  gross  indecency  in 
Utah. 

State  Censorship  is  bound  to  be  unsatisfactory  also  for  the  reason  that 
there  can  be  no  exact  limitations  to  its  scope.  There  can  be  no  point  beyond 
which  it  may  not  be  carried  nor  can  there  be  a  uniformity  of  standards 
among  the  states  permitting  it. 

Given  a  censorship  of  films  in  the  forty-five  states  of  the  union  and 
we  would  have  the  amazing  and  impossible  situation  of  forty-five  different 
kinds  of  morality.  That  which  is  decent  and  moral  in  New  York  City 
might  be  indecent  and  immoral  in  Hoboken;  that  which  is  contrary  to  the 
public  good  in  Kansas  City,  Missouri,  might  well  be  in  complete  accord 
with  the  civil  welfare  of  Kansas  City,  Kansas,  depending  wholly  upon  the 
rulings  of  local  boards.  Could  any  art,  any  industry  live  under  such  con- 
dition. Inhibitions,  restrictions,  conflicts  of  such  a  nature  would  have 
murdered  literature  or  painting,  or  the  drama  generations  ago.  Can  an 
art  as  new  as  the  motion  picture  live  under  them? 

A  proposal  of  State  Censorship  implies  that  the  moot  question  of 
what  is  decent  and  what  is  indecent  shall  be  left  not  to  public  opinion,  but 
to  the  judgment  of  a  commission  of  three  or  five  or  some  other  number  of 
political  appointees.  Will  there  be  anything  sacrasant  about  such  a  board 
of  censors?  No.  They  can  be  no  more  than' a  body  of  non-expert  guard- 
ians of  public  morals ;  a  sore  and  a  needless  irritation  to  the  public. 

16 


Censorship  is  More  Than  Apt  to  be  Swayed  by  Politics 
The  motion  picture  reaches  more  people  and  influences  more  pro- 
foundly, their  thoughts  and  ideals,  than  perhaps  any  other  agency.  It  is  a 
potent  educational  force  and  one  of  the  most  efficient  mediums  for  the  ex- 
pression of  thought.  To  pass  over  its  control  to  a  politically  appointed 
board  is  a  step  fraught  with  danger.  Such  boards  are  bound  to  respond  to 
that  force  which  gave  them  being. 

It  is  claimed  that  political  influence,  engendered  by  a  considerable 
negro  vote  in  Southern  Ohio,  prevented  the  showing  of  "The  Birth  of  a 
Nation"  in  that  state.  In  Pennsylvania,  where  the  negro  vote  is  not  a 
factor  on  election  day,  the  censors  passed  the  picture.  In  Ohio  and  Penn- 
sylvania the  censorship  boards  eleminated  from  the  news  films  all  pictures 
of  the  recent  coal  strike.  Labor  leaders  feel  that  this  was  a  blow  at  them 
and  that  it  was  struck  by  the  mine  owners  who  were  able  to  exert  the 
political  influence  necessary  to  bring  about  the  elimination  of  the  pictures. 
Charles  E.  Hughes,  in  1916,  denounced  the  censorship  of  films  as  un- 
American  and  intolerable.  His  words  were  printed  in  the  newspapers  of 
Kansas;  nevertheless,  the  censors  of  that  state  forbade  the  quotation  to  be 
shown  on  the  screen,  thus  proving  that  mere  vanity  may  sway  the  judg- 
ment of  super-moralists.  The  police  censors  of  Chicago  eliminated  the 
picture  of  a  policeman  borrowing  peanuts  from  a  stand,  alleging  as  reason 
that  it  tended  to  lessen  public  respect  for  the  guardians  of  the  law.  At  the 
same  time,  as  a  later  exposure  revealed,  wholesale  grafting  by  the  police 
was  under  way. 

Censorship  Would  Retard  the  Development  of  the  Motion  Picture 
The  motion  picture  is  a  new  art  and  it  should  enjoy  the  same  freedom 
of  expression  as  the  other  arts.  What  would  our  liteurature,  our  sculp- 
ture, our  painting  be  today  if  every  book,  before  publication,  had  been 
submitted  to  a  censor  with  absolute  powers  of  approval,  rejection  and  elim- 
ination? Or  if  only  such  statues  and  canvases  were  permitted  to  live  in 
our  galleries  as  had  pleased  a  politically  appointed  board  from  the  rural 
districts?  What  kind  of  a  sermon  would  even  our  most  gifted  divines 
prepare  if  they  realized  that  it  was  to  be  read  and  censored  by  a  non- 
religious  board  with  absolute  power  of  rejection  or  modification  before  it 
could  be  delivered  from  the  pulpit?  Censorship  is  fatal  to  the  growth  and 
development  of  any  art. 

Even  the  teaching  of  history  by  the  medium  of  the  screen  could  well 
come  under  the  ban  of  a  board  of  censors  for  there  is  no  vital  period  in 
history  that  may  not  arouse  the  prejudice  of  some  one  today.  Then,  too, 
history  is  immoral  if  measured  by  the  rulings  of  censorship,  for  is  it  not 


replete  with  crimes  of  violence,  with  instances  of  vulgarity,  indecency  and 
sin?  "Joan  the  Woman,"  a  great  historical  film,  reverently  treated,  has 
never  passed  the  Canadian  censors. 

Censorship  of  the  Film  is  Class  Legislation, 
It  invades  one  field  of  artistic  expression  and  leaves  the  others  free. 
Many  stories  have  been  widely  published  in  magazines,  in  newspapers,  in 
book  form,  then  have  been  dramatized  for  the  stage.  By  what  right  may 
the  motion  picture  producer  be  penalized  for  attempting  to  translate  it  to 
the  screen?  Is  not  the  expression  of  thought  by  the  medium  of  the  film 
entitled  to  the  same  protection  under  the  law  as  its  expression  in  print  or 
upon  the  stage? 

Lazy  thinkers  are  prone  to  attribute  all  evils  to  the  motion  picture. 
Years  ago  it  was  the  dime  novel  which  destroyed  the  morality  and  taught 
our  young  idea  how  to  shoot.  Later  cigarette  smoking  was  reputed  to  be 
rapidly  destroying  our  young  manhood.  Only  a  few  years  ago  there  was  a 
demand  for  a  censorship  of  the  colored  supplements  of  the  Sunday  papers. 
Wisconsin  once  considered  placing  a  tape  measure  in  the  hands  of  an  official 
who  was  to  see  that  "no  actress  or  other  female  person  shall  appear  on 
the  stage  unless  properly  covered  by  skirts  which  shall  extend  at  least  four 
inches  below  the  knees." 

The  record  of  our  boys  in  the  Argonne,  at  St.  Mihiel  and  before  the 
Hindenburg  Line  should  have  proved,  this  much  at  least,  that  neither  the 
uncensored  film,  the  penny  dreadful,  the  baneful  cigarette,  the  irreverent 
funny  sheet  nor  the  short  skirt  have  entirely  wrecked  their  manhood  and 
reduced  them  to  moral  and  physical  weaklings. 

Censorship  Cannot  Usurp  the  Functions' or  Exercise  the  Duties 

of  Motherhood 
The  great  argument  used  by  the  advocates  of  censorship  is  that  we 
must  protect  the  child,  and  to  accomplish  that  desirable  end  it  is  proposed 
to  reduce  the  intellectual  standards  of  a  great  and  potential  art  to  the 
level  of  puerility.  It  is  quite  as  impossible  to  bring  the  motion  picture 
down  to  the  level  of  the  child  as  to  bring  literature,  painting,  sculpture 
and  the  drama  down  to  a  ten-year  old  level. 

Before  a  mother  allows  her  child  to  read  a  book  she  may  first  ascertain 
if  it  is  a  proper  book  for  the  child  to  read.  Before  she  takes  him  to  a 
dramatic  performance  she  may  assure  herself  that  it  is  a  proper  play  for 
him  to  attend.  Not  all  books  nor  plays  are  suitable  for  the  infant  mind; 
nevertheless,  we  could  not  tolerate  the  repression  or  destruction  of  all  that 
appeals  to  maturity.  Rather  than  chop  the  motion  picture  down  to  the 
dimensions  of  the  nursery  and  the  kindergarten  let  us  point  the  duty  of 


18 


mothers  to  ascertain  the  nature  of  the  film  entertainment  her  child  attends, 
and  turn  our  thoughts  to  some  other  method  than  censorship. 

The  Public  is  the  Best  Censor 

The  only  censorship  tolerable  in  a  free  and  enlightened  country, 
whether  of  the  press,  the  pulpit,  the  platform,  the  stage  or  the  film,  is  the 
censorship  of  the  people.  That  censorship,  as  exercised  by  the  ten  million 
people  who  daily  attend  our  motion  picture  theatres,  has  proven  sane  and 
efficient.  Pictures  have  shown  a  marked  and  steady  improvement  in  tone 
and  character  during  the  most  critical  period  of  their  growth  and  that 
improvement  seems  bound  to  continue  since  the  great  majority  of  pro- 
ducers are  opposed  to  suggestiveness,  obscenity  and  salaciousness  in  any 
form.  By  the  very  nature  of  the  business  of  motion  pictures,  meretricious- 
ness  and  indecency  defeat  themselves. 

The  penal  code  of  our  cities  and  states  are  sufficiently  broad,  if  in- 
voked and  enforced,  amply  to  protect  the  citizens,  young  and  old,  against 
anything  on  the  screen  which  in  the  opinion  of  properly  constituted  au- 
thorities is  debasing  or  unclean.  Not  until  the  administration  of  the 
criminal  law  has  failed  and  our  courts  have  proven  themselves  incapable 
of  coping  with  infractions  thereof,  should  censorship  be  seriously  consid- 
ered. 

The  Application  of  Censorship  Results  in  Absurdities 

A  study  of  censorship  elimination  show  the  absurdities  of  the  system. 
Carmen  was  rejected  in  three  states  for  three  different  reasons.  Apropos 
of  this,  Channing  Pollock,  in  an  article  on  censorship,  wrote  as  follows: 

"Considering  that  it  is  forty  years  since  first  she  mouthed  her  mad 
love  to  the  music  of  Bizet,  Carmen  might  have  expected  the  deference  due 
old  age.  Beautifully  filmed,  and  beautifully  acted  by  Geraldine  Farrar, 
she  came  as  a  bolt  from  the  blue  to  shocked  and  surprised  'boards'  in  Ohio, 
Pennsylvania  and  California.  Her  ancient  kiss,  that  inspired  the  first  big 
press  'story,'  was  ordered  cut  to  five  feet.  'Just  for  love,  a  little  kiss,' 
warbled  the  Buckeyes,  and  nothing  more  than  a  yard  and  two-thirds  of 
affection  came  within  that  allowance.  'All  love  scenes  showing  embraces 
between  males  and  females'  were  ordered  measured  and  trimmed,  leaving 
the  cigarette  maker  to  give  her  life  for  a  purely  paternal  peck  from  the 
■bashful  bull-fighter,  Escamillo." 

The  writer  declares,  however,  that  Carmen  was  not  permitted  to  give 
her  life  in  Ohio,  or  in  California,  since  a  local  board  objected  to  killing 
of  a  woman  by  a  man,  although  there  was  no  objection  to  the  killing  of  men 
by  women,  doubtless  because,  as  he  puts  it,  "girls  will  be  girls." 

19 


In  Ohio  every  picture  of  a  woman  smoking  must  be  eliminated,  which, 
of  course,  made  the  lot  of  the  Spanish  Carmen  even  more  difficult. 

A  certain  melodrama  depicted  the  execution  of  plans  for  an  assassina- 
tion in  an  isolated  house,  and  showed  the  villain  cutting  the  telephone  wires 
in  furtherance  of  his  plans.  No  objection  was  made  to  the  assassination, 
but  the  picture  was  censored  because  it  tended  to  inspire  small  boys  to 
tamper  with  wires. 

Pennsylvania  prohibited  the  showing  of  a  farcical  scene  in  which  a 
man  burns  a  letter  from  his  wife.  To  tear  up  the  letter,  it  was  explained, 
would  have  been  permissible,  but  burning  showed  contempt  of  the  marital 
relation.  In  Pennsylvania  no  scene  may  be  shown  of  a  mother  making  baby 
clothes,  the  explanation  being  that  children  are  taught  that  babies  are 
brought  by  the  stork.  When  it  was  argued  that  even  in  that  event  chil- 
dren would  of  necessity  need  clothing,  the  censors  refused  to  change  their 
ruling.  Any  suggestion  of  approaching  maternity  is  barred  no  doubt  upon 
the  theory  that  Nature  is  too  immoral  for  representation  on  the  screen. 
The  nilings  of  every  state  board  are  replete  with  absurdities  quite  in  keep- 
ing with  the  examples  above  cited. 

It  is  the  aim  of  censorship  to  bar  evil  scenes  from  the  screen  and  with- 
out evil  good  goes  unobserved.  A  rigid  adherence  to  the  rulings  of  the  ex- 
isting state  boards  would  prevent  the  illustration  of  so  elementary  a  lesson 
in  morals  as  this,  viz. :  "The  wages  of  sin  is  death,"  for  sin  may  not  be 
filmed. 

CONCLUSION 

Legalized  censorship  of  the  film  is  a  dangerous  departure  in  a  free 
country.  It  is  no  less  dangerous  than  a  censorship  of  the  press  or  the  stage 
for  it  places  a  ban  upon  ideas.  The  indecent,  improper  and  immoral  film 
can  be  eradicated  by  the  same  methods  as  are  used  against  indecent,  im- 
proper and  immoral  books  or  plays.  It  may  make  the  passing  of  films  a 
matter  of  political  influence  and  result  in  consequent  abuses  of  power.  It 
does  not  reflect  public  opinion  but  merely  the  personal  views  of  the  censors 
themselves.  The  experiment  which  has  been  tried  in  other  states  does  not 
warrant  New  York  making  such  a  radical  departure  from  the  principles 
upon  which  our  Government  is  founded.  Nor  does  there  appear  to  be  the 
'necessity  for  that  departure.  Great  as  has  been  the  improvement  of  the 
film  in  recent  years,  it  would  be  greater  and  more  rapid  were  the  menace 
of  censorship  eliminated  and  the  art  allowed  to  develop  along  its  natural 
lines,  governed  by  common  sense  and  the  good  taste  of  the  American  people. 


\ 


20 


..  ■»•,■  mnucK 
Syracuio,  N.  Y. 
Stockton,  Calif. 


AA    000  770  148    5 


